The Political Compass

The concept of the political compass is familiar to many people. On the compass I fall in the left libertarian quadrant.

PoliticalCompass

As you can see the political compass has 2 axis, a left/right axis and a libertarian/authoritarian axis. Political positions are described as falling into one quadrant.

The authoritarian right quadrant would describe the position of right wing ideologies like Nazis, fascists, conservative religious and neocons. They share a desire for controlling the behaviour of other people on social issues but with minimum control in business and economic matters. They group as controlling groups wishing to police the behaviour of others for their own benefit, however differently they define that benefit.

The libertarian right represents Ayn Rand types who eschew any state of government control in the lives of people, either in the social arena or the economic one. Rand Paul best exemplifies this position. They desire the dismemberment of government and the total deregulation of the economy.

The libertarian left values freedom and individual autonomy in social and personal matters but favour government intervention in the market economy. They do not advocate adherence to positions contrary to one’s conscience. They believe that run away economic freedom results in a diminished opportunities for most people to exercise any autonomy in their lives. They believe in social programs to promote such.

The authoritarian left includes Marxists, feminists and most identity politics. I have not included white nationalists in with the identity politics because they are very much right authoritarians with equal, but opposite, instincts. It will become obvious in this post why I fear identity politics of the left as much as I fear that of the right.  Tomorrow’s repressive racists are to be found with the vehement anti-racists of today.

We hear of Nazi apparatchiks in Eastern Europe readily becoming Stalinist apparatchiks without missing a heartbeat. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

Robert A Heinlein started off on the left side of politics working for the Southern Poverty Law Centre but switched to the right supporting the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. He practised nudity. Clearly he was a right libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

Most neocons who ascended to power under G W Bush started out their political lives as Marxists before they became neocons. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

The Youtuber T J Kirk (better known as The Amazing Atheist) described himself as originally being a libertarian, meaning a right libertarian but would today clearly identify as a left libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

What is going on here with all these people changing their ideologies? I think the change within these people is not as deep as at first it may seem. My hypothesis is that the left/right axis is mainly cerebral cortex centred, consisting of ideas which are malleable with time and experience but I believe the libertarian/authoritarian axis is rooted deeper in the lymbric system of the brain, a part of the brain we inherited from pre-human ancestors. This is a disposition which does not readily change but seems hard wired. Some people have a more libertarian temperament and other people have a more authoritarian temperament. We do not become authoritarian or libertarian with considered thought. We are one or the other and the cerebral cortex goes to work to “ennoble” our instincts, to spin doctor with “reasons” and that becomes “what we think”. Thus a Nazi apparatchik can reason his way to becoming a Stalinist apparatchik but he does not lose his authoritarian bent. Similarly a Marxist can reason his way to becoming a neocon but he doesn’t lose his authoritarian bent. Both of these types have “ennobled” their basic instinct on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

Similarly Heinlein reasoned his way to the right end of libertarianism but did not lose his libertarian bent. He was libertine in his lifestyle choices. T J Kirk started out as a typical right libertarian but with reasons moved to a left libertarian position. He kept his libertarian bent.

It is easy to see why I fear feminism and other forms of identity politics even though they oppose the authoritarian right. It is their inherent authoritarianism and in the future they could become the very people they fear because in truth they are not very different. There are almost no libertarian feminists other than the usual NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) who have no voice or choose not to raise it if they do, having seen what happens to others. This is a big reason for my blog; to counter the faux activism of authoritarian leftists who used disenfranchised groups as their shield and their cover while indulge the darker angels of their nature. They are like the neocons who tout the “freedom” of people oppressed by dictators while they themselves would become dictator in a blink, given a chance.

Advertisements

The Jaw Dropping Tweet about #FalseAccusations

FalseAccusations

There is hardly anything which needs to be said about the above tweet. It displays a callousness and a lack of empathy for others, at least those others who are not members of her “approved groups”. It almost revels in false accusations and a complete disregard that false accusations are actually a criminal offence, even if they are not often prosecuted.

She is also too honest revealing more about herself than perhaps she realised or intended. What could be the agenda of someone who would tweet in these terms? One can speculate.

One thing which can be said is that historically a great many of the falsely accused were black men in the US south during the Jim Crow era with its lynch mob justice.

ListenBelieve.jpg

This is what #ListenAndBelieve looked like the last time around. This was an earlier  “rape culture” hysteria The tweeter, to use the language of SJWs, is “othering” black male victims of false accusations. The central plot point of To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is a false accusation of rape against Tom Robinson. A book which could not be written today because it would be “politically incorrect”.

What does this say about feminists? It says they not believe that justice should be denied to black men. Rather feminists believe that all men should face the same injustices which were faced by black men. Equal opportunity lynching. Lynch mobs which do not discriminate on the basis of race. Bringing ALL men down the horrors met out to black men in an earlier era.

This all highlights the dangers of racism for those opposing feminists. This only serves the interests of feminists. Men fighting each other instead of facing feminists with their lies and double standards. Unfortunately the rise of Islamic terror sets men against men in exactly a way which advantages feminists. I will talk about racism and nationalism in a future post.

Racism, a conjecture on the origin, reasons for its persistence and advice on living with it.

This blog post is not directly related to feminism but the issue of blinkered sociology and the social sciences vizaviz evolutionary psychology is also an issue for feminism. It is based on another social media post.

All people have the potential to be racist. It’s an instinct to fear what is different. We do not learn racism contrary to what is gospel according to social scientists and sociologists. It comes from evolutionary psychology. It is really genetic competition. Sometimes it manifests in ways that are not directly related to genes or are only slightly related to genes like prejudice to other languages, ethnic groups, religious beliefs or cultures. In these instances the same instinct is misdirected but on average it will work to favour own genes. On who or what it operates is determined by the size of your circle of empathy which can include your family, your tribe, your town, your country, your race, human beings as a whole or even other species, thus pets. That empathy circle can expand or contract in time and dependant on stresses in your environment.

Social scientists and activists sometimes claim that “under privileged” classes can not be racist and thus their loathing of “whites”, “men”, “cis gendered” and other “privileged” groups is not really “prejudice”  or “hate”. This is self serving double think and ideological exceptionalism and it is very dangerous nonsense. Imperial powers are often guilty of exceptionalism. Social scientists have no idea of what motivates us in behaviour or our likes and dislikes. The social sciences have been poisoned by ideology. This is the victory of irrationality over rationality.

So what can we do? It helps to realise we are captive to our biology but that our basic biology does not have to be us. We reproduce not to ensure OUR immortality. No, we reproduce to ensure the immortality of our GENES but we are not our genes. We, each of us are just flowering parts of our genomes and our instincts. Biologically influenced behaviours are in the interest of a lower based entity which is not us. Each of us are really vehicles carrying our genes as passengers. When the vehicle wears out the passengers will abandon the wreck and continue their journey in other vehicles. We ourselves will be extinct. We feel good with the release of brain chemicals when our behaviour enables our reproduction. By viewing ourselves as less than we are biologically, then we can lessen our potential to do evil than we can when we are held hostage to the darker angels of our nature. By having a lower level of investment in our biological selves we can gain insight into our nature as both good and evil at the same time and also feel less inclination and act on our darker angels.

One last thing about racism to remember is that it is the other side of racism is the protective instinct. The protective instinct is actually a manifestation of the “selfish gene” and comes from the same place as racism and other forms of prejudice. That is why in war time propaganda focuses on protecting women and babies. It is why WWI propaganda animation showed a Hun squashing a baby under an iron boot. It is why in 1990 we had the lie of Iraqi soldiers turning off humidi-cribs in Kuwaiti hospitals was propagated in the lead up to the first Gulf War. The desire to protect very easily becomes the desire to hate. By appealing to the best in us leaders can make us do the worse to others. Even the author of Matthew used a baby slaughter to sell the biblical nativity story. There was no war in the context of the bible story but the author of Matthew clearly knew how to pull the heart strings of his readers.

All this brings us to other loyalties and chauvinisms. Chauvinism is only a hair’s breadth away from hate. One such is patriotism but patriotism is love for a temporary formation. Nations are like clouds in the sky. Their form is always shifting. If we become emotionally invested in one cloud formation we will be disappointed within seconds. This is the nature of so many insecurities concerning migration, language use and religious affinity. An emotional attachment to what was never going to be for very long and which leads to frustrations of the type manifesting as racism among other isms.